Doe v. LaBrosse
| Decision Date | 27 March 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-97-M,90-97-M |
| Citation | 588 A.2d 605 |
| Parties | Frances DOE and Karen Doe v. Marc R. LaBROSSE, Sr. P. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
This case comes before us on a petition for certiorari following denial of the defendant's motion for summary judgment in a civil sexual-assault case. We remand the matter for an evidentiary hearing.
The plaintiffs are the adult daughters of defendant Marc R. LaBrosse, Sr.; they are currently thirty-four and thirty-five years old. They allege that from 1959 until 1972 defendant engaged in forced sexual contact with them on an average of two times per week. The defendant also verbally abused plaintiffs and threatened them not to reveal the assaults to anyone.
As a result of defendant's acts, plaintiffs maintain that they have suffered and continue to suffer severe emotional distress and psychological injuries. Although the assaults ceased almost twenty years ago, plaintiffs allege that they only recently discovered the connection between the physical assaults they suffered as children and the resulting psychological injuries they have suffered as adults. Because of this delayed discovery, they did not bring their suit until February 2, 1989.
Rather than file an answer to plaintiffs' complaint, defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure on the grounds that the matter was barred by the statute of limitations. General Laws 1956 (1985 Reenactment) § 9-1-14 specifies that a suit for personal injuries must be filed within three years of the accrual of the cause of action. Section 9-1-19, P.L.1988, ch. 107, § 1, postpones the running of the statute of limitations until a minor plaintiff reaches the age of majority. Thus plaintiffs brought their suit well beyond the three-year-limitations period.
Following oral argument, the trial justice directed the parties to file memoranda of law on the issue of whether the discovery rule should toll the statute of limitations in this case. In addition to the memoranda of law, the trial justice found it necessary to consider the affidavits of plaintiffs and their therapists regarding the date plaintiffs discovered that their injuries were causally related to defendant's acts. Because the trial justice considered matters outside the pleadings, the motion to dismiss was treated as a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure.
After reviewing the relevant case law, the trial justice concluded that "the discovery rule should be available to the plaintiffs" and that the statute of limitations did not bar the case. He then determined that two genuine issues of material fact existed: whether defendant committed the acts as alleged and, if so, when plaintiffs discovered that defendant's acts caused their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe v. First United Methodist Church
...victim of incest from the age of five through fifteen may not have appreciated the wrongfulness of her father's conduct); Doe v. LaBrosse (R.I.1991), 588 A.2d 605 (discovery rule may be applicable where victims of incest from a very early age may not have discovered the causal relationship ......
-
Phinney v. Morgan, 94-P-514
...See, e.g., Lemmerman v. Fealk, 201 Mich.App. 544, 507 N.W.2d 226 (1993); Osland v. Osland, 442 N.W.2d 907 (N.D.1989); Doe v. LaBrosse, 588 A.2d 605 (R.I.1991); Hammer v. Hammer, 142 Wis.2d 257, 418 N.W.2d 23 (Wis.App.1987). See also Tyson v. Tyson, 107 Wash.2d 72, 727 P.2d 226 (1986) (Pears......
-
Kelly v. Marcantonio
...in childhood sexual abuse cases, we specifically hesitated to judicially integrate a discovery rule into those cases. Doe v. LaBrosse, 588 A.2d 605, 606-607 (R.I.1991). For us now to expand, judicially, the discovery rule to nonperpetrator-defendants in childhood sexual abuse cases would ca......
-
83 Hawai'i 28, Dunlea v. Dappen
...record, we cannot conclude that the trial court's finding in this regard [was] clearly erroneous. Id. at 909. See also Doe v. LaBrosse, 588 A.2d 605, 607 (R.I.1991) (remanding for evidentiary hearing to "determine the date that the [thirty-four and thirty-five year old] plaintiffs discovere......